(Ignore the statue of Jesus: it's actually located in a parish of the Church of Denmark, which is Lutheran.)

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

If you want to read some semi-polemical but erudite works of a traditionalist Catholic on Orthodoxy I recommend Adrian Fortescue's Orthodox Eastern Church and The Greek Fathers. Some of the scholarship is a little bit outdated, but those books are nice reads even for those who don't know much about theology.

There's an interesting chapter in the Orthodox Eastern Church about the differences in faith between EOC and RCC from page 361 onwards. Anyway, both books should be read in its entirety, I think.

For an Orthodox treatment of history around the schism, I'd recommend The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy authored by Aristeides Papadakis in collaboration with Fr. John Meyendorff. The book is not designed as a refutation, but it does wind up refuting many arguments made by Roman Catholic apologists who often make arguments which are far from historically accurate.

« Last Edit: January 09, 2013, 05:31:52 AM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Are there even Roman Catholics out there anymore who take their beliefs seriously enough to actually debate Orthodoxy instead of taking the ecumenical approach? From my experience with Roman Catholics in person, they seem very ecumenical and somewhat uninformed upon our differences when I tell them that I am Orthodox.

Are there even Roman Catholics out there anymore who take their beliefs seriously enough to actually debate Orthodoxy instead of taking the ecumenical approach? From my experience with Roman Catholics in person, they seem very ecumenical and somewhat uninformed upon our differences when I tell them that I am Orthodox.

Are there even Roman Catholics out there anymore who take their beliefs seriously enough to actually debate Orthodoxy instead of taking the ecumenical approach? From my experience with Roman Catholics in person, they seem very ecumenical and somewhat uninformed upon our differences when I tell them that I am Orthodox.

Why not read the books I linked to?

Well, Fortescue has long since passed away, and there does seem to be an appreciable loss of quality in Roman Catholic apologetics these days.

« Last Edit: January 09, 2013, 05:49:03 AM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Are there even Roman Catholics out there anymore who take their beliefs seriously enough to actually debate Orthodoxy instead of taking the ecumenical approach? From my experience with Roman Catholics in person, they seem very ecumenical and somewhat uninformed upon our differences when I tell them that I am Orthodox.

Why not read the books I linked to?

Well, Fortescue has long since passed away, and there does seem to be an appreciable loss of quality in Roman Catholic apologetics these days.

I agree. The RC's are quite scared that they'll slow down the ecumenical process if they write apologetics against Orthodoxy. And besides, to take on Orthodoxy one would need a lot of historical, theological and philosophical knowledge. Protestantism is a much easier target.

Are there even Roman Catholics out there anymore who take their beliefs seriously enough to actually debate Orthodoxy instead of taking the ecumenical approach? From my experience with Roman Catholics in person, they seem very ecumenical and somewhat uninformed upon our differences when I tell them that I am Orthodox.

Why not read the books I linked to?

Well, Fortescue has long since passed away, and there does seem to be an appreciable loss of quality in Roman Catholic apologetics these days.

I agree. The RC's are quite scared that they'll slow down the ecumenical process if they write apologetics against Orthodoxy. And besides, to take on Orthodoxy one would need a lot of historical, theological and philosophical knowledge. Protestantism is a much easier target.

That being said, there are plenty of Roman Catholics who take their faith seriously enough to try to argue that Orthodoxy is wrong and Catholicism is right. Unfortunately, they almost always use florilegia as their primary apologetic tool, which really is the lowest and least interesting form of apologetics.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Are there even Roman Catholics out there anymore who take their beliefs seriously enough to actually debate Orthodoxy instead of taking the ecumenical approach? From my experience with Roman Catholics in person, they seem very ecumenical and somewhat uninformed upon our differences when I tell them that I am Orthodox.

Why not read the books I linked to?

Well, Fortescue has long since passed away, and there does seem to be an appreciable loss of quality in Roman Catholic apologetics these days.

I agree. The RC's are quite scared that they'll slow down the ecumenical process if they write apologetics against Orthodoxy. And besides, to take on Orthodoxy one would need a lot of historical, theological and philosophical knowledge. Protestantism is a much easier target.

Logged

My only weakness is, well, never mind

He said he had a horrible houseI looked in it and learnt to shut my mouth

Are there even Roman Catholics out there anymore who take their beliefs seriously enough to actually debate Orthodoxy instead of taking the ecumenical approach? From my experience with Roman Catholics in person, they seem very ecumenical and somewhat uninformed upon our differences when I tell them that I am Orthodox.

Why not read the books I linked to?

Well, Fortescue has long since passed away, and there does seem to be an appreciable loss of quality in Roman Catholic apologetics these days.

I agree. The RC's are quite scared that they'll slow down the ecumenical process if they write apologetics against Orthodoxy. And besides, to take on Orthodoxy one would need a lot of historical, theological and philosophical knowledge. Protestantism is a much easier target.

Are there even Roman Catholics out there anymore who take their beliefs seriously enough to actually debate Orthodoxy instead of taking the ecumenical approach? From my experience with Roman Catholics in person, they seem very ecumenical and somewhat uninformed upon our differences when I tell them that I am Orthodox.

Well, there's two approaches Catholics make. One is the, "we're the same faith expressed differently and only politics separates us." The other is, "you are heretic schismatics and everything you say is false because you are not in communion with the Pope."

Are there even Roman Catholics out there anymore who take their beliefs seriously enough to actually debate Orthodoxy instead of taking the ecumenical approach? From my experience with Roman Catholics in person, they seem very ecumenical and somewhat uninformed upon our differences when I tell them that I am Orthodox.

"Somewhat uninformed"??

I'm surprised they don't ask you which synagogue you attend.

There are sooo many more Catholics in this country than there are Orthodox that I'm willing to bet most Catholics don't even know what Orthodoxy is. I'd also be willing to bet that most of the ones who do know what Orthodoxy is only have a passing familiarity with it and probably aren't all that interested in it anyway. And of the ones who have some real interest in it and even have more than a passing familiarity with it, I'd be willing to bet that many would be ecumenical in the sense of accepting Orthodoxy as a sister faith to Catholicism or some such thing. And then there's all those folks on the internets.

Are there even Roman Catholics out there anymore who take their beliefs seriously enough to actually debate Orthodoxy instead of taking the ecumenical approach? From my experience with Roman Catholics in person, they seem very ecumenical and somewhat uninformed upon our differences when I tell them that I am Orthodox.

Well, there's two approaches Catholics make. One is the, "we're the same faith expressed differently and only politics separates us." The other is, "you are heretic schismatics and everything you say is false because you are not in communion with the Pope."

And then there's all those Orthodox who say of us Catholics, "you are heretic schismatics and everything you say is false because you are not in communion with the Pope."

Are there even Roman Catholics out there anymore who take their beliefs seriously enough to actually debate Orthodoxy instead of taking the ecumenical approach? From my experience with Roman Catholics in person, they seem very ecumenical and somewhat uninformed upon our differences when I tell them that I am Orthodox.

Well, there's two approaches Catholics make. One is the, "we're the same faith expressed differently and only politics separates us." The other is, "you are heretic schismatics and everything you say is false because you are not in communion with the Pope."

For an Orthodox treatment of history around the schism, I'd recommend The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy authored by Aristeides Papadakis in collaboration with Fr. John Meyendorff. The book is not designed as a refutation, but it does wind up refuting many arguments made by Roman Catholic apologists who often make arguments which are far from historically accurate.

Love that book. Dry as dust, but interesting as all get-out.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Are there even Roman Catholics out there anymore who take their beliefs seriously enough to actually debate Orthodoxy instead of taking the ecumenical approach? From my experience with Roman Catholics in person, they seem very ecumenical and somewhat uninformed upon our differences when I tell them that I am Orthodox.

Well, there's two approaches Catholics make. One is the, "we're the same faith expressed differently and only politics separates us." The other is, "you are heretic schismatics and everything you say is false because you are not in communion with the Pope."

Both approaches are fatally flawed, but the former is a lot more annoying.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Both approaches are fatally flawed, but the former is a lot more annoying.

Admittedly most aren't really aware of the issues. When I became Eastern Catholic I was even dismissed as a "non-practicing Catholic" because I wasn't Roman Catholic anymore. By the head of Parish Catechesis! Of course the more learned ones do know the complexity of the issue, but the greater majority don't and would just think anyone who isn't Roman Catholic is Protestant (they also probably don't know the difference between a JW and an Evangelical).

Are there even Roman Catholics out there anymore who take their beliefs seriously enough to actually debate Orthodoxy instead of taking the ecumenical approach? From my experience with Roman Catholics in person, they seem very ecumenical and somewhat uninformed upon our differences when I tell them that I am Orthodox.

Well, there's two approaches Catholics make. One is the, "we're the same faith expressed differently and only politics separates us." The other is, "you are heretic schismatics and everything you say is false because you are not in communion with the Pope."

And then there's whatever I am these days.......tired, I guess.

Preaching to the choir, my friend!

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

If you haven't already, you might listen to Fr. Stephen Damick's Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy on AFR or just buy the book. He gives a lengthy discussion about the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy as well as the differences with other religions. Obviously, it is pro-Orthodox so not entirely objective, but he gives a very good and interesting discussion between the different faiths. He makes some very good points and is a very good speaker.

I've always felt that the International Orthodox-Roman Catholic dialogue should issue papers of the debates between the churches, forthrightly, yet respectfully articulating the positions of both churches. Instead, they issue statements with the intent of promoting where the churches have commonness, not that that is a bad thing, but it doesn't work toward an understanding of what is true, what could lead to a realistic understanding of what keeps us divided, and let the reader decide what should be. I had a discussion with a devout, practicing Roman Catholic who asked me how can three words, "and the Son," be such a stumbling block between the churches? When I explained it to him, the scriptural basis for the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, and the matter of the authority of a Pope over an Ecumenical Synod (Council) and the consensus of the church, he understood (not that it converted him, by any means, though).

I've always felt that the International Orthodox-Roman Catholic dialogue should issue papers of the debates between the churches, forthrightly, yet respectfully articulating the positions of both churches.

I agree. I'm not sure why the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue have not published the various papers written and discussed by members of the dialogue teams. The American Catholic and Lutheran dialogue, e.g., have published many of their papers. The papers are always of greater interest than the consensus statements.

Are there even Roman Catholics out there anymore who take their beliefs seriously enough to actually debate Orthodoxy instead of taking the ecumenical approach? From my experience with Roman Catholics in person, they seem very ecumenical and somewhat uninformed upon our differences when I tell them that I am Orthodox.

Why not read the books I linked to?

Well, Fortescue has long since passed away, and there does seem to be an appreciable loss of quality in Roman Catholic apologetics these days.

I agree. The RC's are quite scared that they'll slow down the ecumenical process if they write apologetics against Orthodoxy. And besides, to take on Orthodoxy one would need a lot of historical, theological and philosophical knowledge. Protestantism is a much easier target.

Keep them all in your prayers so that the secularists and Protestants are kept at a distance.

(That's from a conversation last year about Eastern Europe. When I objected, another Orthodox poster, Schultz, responded by starting a rumor about me, that I believe "that Protestants and Orthodox are part of the same church" (yes, you read that right). When asked about it, he said "As for how I came to this, your words in this very thread" but wouldn't be any more specific than that, despite weeks of requesting that he do so. Visit that thread if you want to read more of the flak I got from Orthodox posters.)

Perhaps I am not following the thread (in question) closely enough, but I don't think any lasting animosity need remain from that. Schultz is a bit acerbic at times, but nonetheless a stand up guy. When he resigned as mod of the Catholic section I don't remember only positive comments from every side regarding the job he had done. I say this not to say you're wrong, only that I'd hate for this thing to be an obstacle moving forward, even in discussions with Schultz himself. I guess maybe it's corny to play peace keeper, but that's my 2 cents.

Perhaps I am not following the thread (in question) closely enough, but I don't think any lasting animosity need remain from that. Schultz is a bit acerbic at times, but nonetheless a stand up guy. When he resigned as mod of the Catholic section I don't remember only positive comments from every side regarding the job he had done. I say this not to say you're wrong, only that I'd hate for this thing to be an obstacle moving forward, even in discussions with Schultz himself. I guess maybe it's corny to play peace keeper, but that's my 2 cents.

It's not corny, but it's pretty predictable. Basically the usual If-you-have-a-problem,then-you-must-be-reading-in-something-that-isn't-there-or etc. etc. Forgive me for saying that it has gotten a little old.